L Trevena1, L Irwig, A Barratt. 1. Room 322, Edward Ford Building (A27), The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. lyndalt@health.usyd.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Privacy laws have recently created restrictions on how researchers can approach study participants. METHOD: In a randomised trial of 152 patients, 50-74 years old, in a family practice, 60 were randomly selected to opt-out and 92 to opt-in methods. Patients were sent an introductory letter by their doctor in two phases, opt-out before and opt-in after introduction of the new Privacy Legislation in December 2001. Opt-out patients were contacted by researchers. Opt-in patients were contacted if patients responded by email, free telephone number or a reply-paid card. RESULTS: Opt-in recruited fewer patients (47%; 43/92) after invitation compared with opt-out (67%; 40/60); (-20%; [-4% to -36%]). No proportional difference in recruitment was found between opt-in and opt-out groups varied by age, sex or socioeconomic status. The opt-in group had significantly more people in active decision-making roles (+30%; [10% to 50%]; p = 0.003). Non-significant trends were observed towards opt-in being less likely to include people with lower education (-11.8%; [-30% to 6.4%]; p = 0.13) and people who were not screened (-19.1%; [-40.1% to 1.9%]; p = 0.08). Opt-in was more likely to recruit people with a family history of colorectal cancer (+12.7%; [-2.8%, 28.2%]; p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The number of participants required to be approached was markedly increased in opt-in recruitment. Existing participants (eg, screening attendees) with a vested interest such as increased risk, and those preferring an active role in health decision making and with less education were likely to be recruited in opt-in. Research costs and generalisability are affected by implementing privacy legislation.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Privacy laws have recently created restrictions on how researchers can approach study participants. METHOD: In a randomised trial of 152 patients, 50-74 years old, in a family practice, 60 were randomly selected to opt-out and 92 to opt-in methods. Patients were sent an introductory letter by their doctor in two phases, opt-out before and opt-in after introduction of the new Privacy Legislation in December 2001. Opt-outpatients were contacted by researchers. Opt-inpatients were contacted if patients responded by email, free telephone number or a reply-paid card. RESULTS:Opt-in recruited fewer patients (47%; 43/92) after invitation compared with opt-out (67%; 40/60); (-20%; [-4% to -36%]). No proportional difference in recruitment was found between opt-in and opt-out groups varied by age, sex or socioeconomic status. The opt-in group had significantly more people in active decision-making roles (+30%; [10% to 50%]; p = 0.003). Non-significant trends were observed towards opt-in being less likely to include people with lower education (-11.8%; [-30% to 6.4%]; p = 0.13) and people who were not screened (-19.1%; [-40.1% to 1.9%]; p = 0.08). Opt-in was more likely to recruit people with a family history of colorectal cancer (+12.7%; [-2.8%, 28.2%]; p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The number of participants required to be approached was markedly increased in opt-in recruitment. Existing participants (eg, screening attendees) with a vested interest such as increased risk, and those preferring an active role in health decision making and with less education were likely to be recruited in opt-in. Research costs and generalisability are affected by implementing privacy legislation.
Authors: Ann Butler Nattinger; Liliana E Pezzin; Rodney A Sparapani; Joan M Neuner; Toni K King; Purushottam W Laud Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-07-21 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Bettina Meiser; Michelle Peate; Charlene Levitan; Philip B Mitchell; Lyndal Trevena; Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Timothy Dobbins; Helen Christensen; Kerry A Sherman; Kate Dunlop; Peter R Schofield Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jesia G Berry; Philip Ryan; Annette J Braunack-Mayer; Katherine M Duszynski; Vicki Xafis; Michael S Gold Journal: Trials Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Shaun Treweek; Pauline Lockhart; Marie Pitkethly; Jonathan A Cook; Monica Kjeldstrøm; Marit Johansen; Taina K Taskila; Frank M Sullivan; Sue Wilson; Catherine Jackson; Ritu Jones; Elizabeth D Mitchell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katie Gillies; Anna Kearney; Ciara Keenan; Shaun Treweek; Jemma Hudson; Valerie C Brueton; Thomas Conway; Andrew Hunter; Louise Murphy; Peter J Carr; Greta Rait; Paul Manson; Magaly Aceves-Martins Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-06
Authors: Brian Williams; Linda Irvine; Alison R McGinnis; Marion E T McMurdo; Iain K Crombie Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 2.655